Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Placental Evolutionary Tree: Example of Theory Complexity

It has long been understood that elaborate explanations can always be contrived in order to explain observations. But why should we believe they are true? The backward motion of planets can be explained by a series of epicycles, designed specifically to fit the peculiar motion. But with heliocentrism no such adjustments are required—the backward planetary motion is a natural outcome. So while complicated narratives are needed for bed-time stories and soap operas, parsimony is valued in science. Nature, and only nature, should be explained. Scientists become suspicious when a theory becomes increasingly complex to accommodate failed expectations—when particular explanations are needed to adjust to contradictory findings.

Falsifications can also be a sign of problems if they are common. If a theory makes predictions that are consistently wrong, then suspicion again arises. Regardless of how much complexity is needed to explain the contradictory findings, a steady stream of such findings, in itself, can indicate weakness.

Evolution has a long history of false predictions leading to rising complexity. The evolutionist’s claim that all of this is a sign of good science, of learning how evolution actually occurred, is not consistent with evolution’s many falsified predictions and complex adjustments.

One example of this is the evolutionary history of placental mammals. In recent decades this history was investigated by comparing the DNA sequences from different placentals. But the results were conflicting. Now, recent research has once again investigated this evolutionary history, this time using the much touted DNA retroelements which promise to provide a much clearer picture. But again, evolutionists must resort to convoluted explanations in order to fit the data to their theory:

We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species. Effects of alternating divergence, hybridization, introgression, and incomplete lineage sorting might complicate our search for a clear dichotomy at the base of this tree and leave us with an indistinct, effective “soft” polytomy, leading sometimes to one or the other solution depending on the size of the data set and the particular markers examined.

Evolution is now its own best parody. Evolutionists think nothing of these sorts of explanations and repeatedly use them when needed. But elaborate explanations can always be contrived in order to explain observations. Why should we believe they are true? As with heliocentrism, evolution erects so many "epicycles" in order to fit the data. Religion drives science and it matters.

Just picking a thread at random to make this point, but what exactly is your opinion on Creationism - the belief that the Biblical account of the creation of the universe is literally true?

I raise this because you decalre yourself a scientist in search of the truth, yet you spend every blog post criticising only one theory, as if this posed the only threat (in your view) to impartial scientific research.

What do you think of the Young Earth Creationists, and the 'scientists' who claim to provide evidence for their theory, such as Duane Gish?

Most of all I'd like to hear how you compare these 'scientists' to those who advocate ID, and those who advocate evolution. Whose practice of science do you find most reliable? Whose do you find most productive? What scientific practices differentiate them from each other, and what common errors of thought link those who you disagree with, if any?

Or is the theory of evolution the only theory in town worth criticising?

Comparing the evolution of placental mammals with planetary epicycles is an interesting analogy. In the case of epicycles, this idea was eventually replaced by theories stemming from Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. Epicycles weren't abandoned because people found them incredible or unbelievable (although some may have), but because a better explanation come along to usurp it. As far as I can tell, that's how science often works - we don't abandon a theory because it is bad, but usually because something better comes along.

From what I can gather Dr. Hunter is a member of the Discovery Institute - a fellow in fact. As such one can reasonably assume that he ascribes to at least the basic principles of Intelligent Design. Now, I appreciate that ID in of itself is not necessarily a "replacement" for evolution - but on the other hand I do think ID supports believe it offers more explanatory power.

Which is all the more puzzling then why Dr. Hunter, when criticizing evolution (which is really the whole purpose of this blog), does not also use the opportunity to promote positive evidence for ID - if not to completely replace evolution but at least to offer some explanatory power where he thinks evolution is weak. For example, when describing some "just so" story about evolution he could offer an alternative explanation from ID, such as irreducible complexity. But he never does - in fact he rarely even talks about ID at all.

i personally don't find Dr. Hunter's "negative" argument very compelling. Yes, there may be issues with evolution - but one could easily find the same with any scientific theory. We also have to consider that Dr. Hunter may be exhibiting confirmation bias here too. Besides, even with the issues, the overarching framework of evolution seems sound and strongly supported by evidence (and Dr. Hunter's assertions to the contrary don't really sway me). Of course if Dr. Hunter wants to offer an alternative hypothesis or theory that potentially could replace evolution, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

Looks like Dr. Hunter has made two new posts since we posted our comments. So I guess we not likely to get a reply, although I believe our requests for information were perfectly polite and reasonable.

One would almost think Dr. Hunter is somewhat ashamed by ID, right? When he criticises evolution, what more perfect opportunity to promote as a valid alternative (partially or otherwise). But no, we don't even get the slightest hint or whiff of an alternative hypothesis. Obviously Dr. Hunter must think there is one. But on the other hand I'm beginning to doubt whether he thinks ID is up to the job.

Odd really, considering he is a Fellow of the DI, one would think he would be out there more trumpeting its cause.

Without this valid hypothesis, there is really little to no reason to think that there is anything but a natural explanation for evolution. Sure, there are issues. But in which scientific discipline are there not issues? But even with these issues (mostly at the periphery of course), there really is no reason yet to think that a non-material explanation of evolution is viable. Unless Dr. Hunter has some evidence for that which he has yet to share.

"Looks like Dr. Hunter has made two new posts since we posted our comments. So I guess we not likely to get a reply, although I believe our requests for information were perfectly polite and reasonable."

All too often the case, I'm afraid. If you look over some of these threads, Dr Hunter may reply to a few posts, but generally ignores question he presumably finds inconvenient.

"One would almost think Dr. Hunter is somewhat ashamed by ID, right? When he criticises evolution, what more perfect opportunity to promote as a valid alternative (partially or otherwise). But no, we don't even get the slightest hint or whiff of an alternative hypothesis."

As a general rule, I find Dr. Hunter is unwilling to commit himself to any position at all. Whenever I debate him assuming he is simply an ID advocate I get a lot of 'I didn't say that', and 'You're using a strawman argument'.

Then again, even this follows the pattern of many ID advocates. To create the pretence that they are doing objective science and that the establishment is in error, they need to distance themseves from what are essentially their Creationist roots as much as possible, focus on criticising evolution as far as possible, and hope to seem more plausible simply by default.

It is a decidedly unscientific tactic, yet one Dr Hunter bizarrely and ironically thinks the proponents of evolution are doing.

Dr Hunter often begins threads pointing out what he believes to be mysteries the theory of biology cannot account for. Whether it is the theory itself or merely his understanding/knowledge of it which is in error, I cannot say. But even supposing he is correct, without putting forward a competing explanation, I cannot see what he is achieving besides pointing out the there are mysteries in biology. A point I am sure no-one will disagree with him on.

Ritchie: "As a general rule, I find Dr. Hunter is unwilling to commit himself to any position at all. Whenever I debate him assuming he is simply an ID advocate I get a lot of 'I didn't say that', and 'You're using a strawman argument'."

I have to say I agree. I find it very hard to discern what Dr. Hunter's position is (other than the anti-evolutionary stance that fills this blog).

I suspect the truth is that despite his misgivings about evolution Dr. Hunter realizes that neither ID or creationism offer any useful insights or anything close to a replacement for evolution. Of course the more obvious answer is that Dr. Hunter believes (by faith) that in some way or other "God did it" although he doesn't know exactly how - but to him that's enough "evidence" to convince him that evolution is wrong.

Of course all Dr. H has to do is make a simple statement of what he believes or doesn't, but I guess he wants to keep his cards close to his chest (although I suggest this tactic alienates interested enquirers rather than persuades them to his point of view).

================Just picking a thread at random to make this point, but what exactly is your opinion on Creationism - the belief that the Biblical account of the creation of the universe is literally true?

I raise this because you decalre yourself a scientist in search of the truth, yet you spend every blog post criticising only one theory, as if this posed the only threat (in your view) to impartial scientific research.

What do you think of the Young Earth Creationists, and the 'scientists' who claim to provide evidence for their theory, such as Duane Gish?=================

I guess I don't see the big concern. I'm not familiar with Gish, but AFAIK YECs are honest and consistent. They explain that they believe scripture must be interpreted as requiring a young earth, and they then build on that. What's the problem? Everything is above board. If you disagree with their presupposition, then you have a difference right off the bat. It's not as though they are making false claims (like their theory is a scientific fact).

=========Most of all I'd like to hear how you compare these 'scientists' to those who advocate ID, and those who advocate evolution. Whose practice of science do you find most reliable? Whose do you find most productive? What scientific practices differentiate them from each other, and what common errors of thought link those who you disagree with, if any?

Or is the theory of evolution the only theory in town worth criticising?=========

To compare these, think of a theory of origins as consisting of two components:

1. The evidence or arguments for why we should think it is true (the evidence)2. The explanation of how the world originated (the theory)

Now very simply put, we can classify 1 as "religious" or "scientific". For instance, if there are non scientific premises then it is "religious."

We can classify 2 as "mechanistic" or "non mechanistic" depending on whether the causation is restricted to mechanistic causes.

With these (simplified) classifications in mind, here is how they compare:

In my view YEC is not particularly interesting from a history of thought perspective. It seems to be pretty straightforward.

I think design is a bit more interesting, perhaps more so because of the reactions to it, and because it may raise more science and philosophy questions than it answers. Long story.

But I think evolution is the most interesting of the three from a history of thought perspective. Its massive internal contradictions and pseudo science coupled with its high claims of being an objective fact on par with gravity, and its strong acceptance world wide, make it by far the most dangerous of the three. It is the unlikely (or perhaps likely) combination of extreme pseudo science and extreme certainty, and is an outstanding example of how religion can harm science. Evolutionists provide a great example of how susceptible the human's rational thought process is to metaphysics and heart-felt issues.

Just look at the evolution literature, and these discussions. Evolution is our creation myth, yet we deny it.

"I guess I don't see the big concern. I'm not familiar with Gish, but AFAIK YECs are honest and consistent. They explain that they believe scripture must be interpreted as requiring a young earth, and they then build on that. What's the problem? Everything is above board."

For someone who gets so hot under the collar about evolution supposedly being 'driven by religion', why do you not see a problem when YEC's do the same?

"It's not as though they are making false claims (like their theory is a scientific fact)."

Errr, yes. Many claim exactly that. To pick an example at random:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Let me state my position - I disapprove of YEC's because they have a conclusion they are simply seeking to support with evidence. This is unscientific right from the get-go. They believe the Biblical account of Creation and interpret any data they find according to the assumption that this is true.

Your summary seems to agre with mine on that regard. So why don't you 'see the big concern' or think 'everything is above board'? A corruption of the scientific method is a corruption of the scientific method no matter what its conclusions are, surely?

====For someone who gets so hot under the collar about evolution supposedly being 'driven by religion', why do you not see a problem when YEC's do the same?====

Because they are not in denial about it.

==== "It's not as though they are making false claims (like their theory is a scientific fact)."

Errr, yes. Many claim exactly that. To pick an example at random:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml====

I don't have time to read that entire site, but I could immediately see your claim is yet another strawman. They do not claim creationism is a scientfic fact, they say it is well supported by the data.

====Let me state my position - I disapprove of YEC's because they have a conclusion they are simply seeking to support with evidence. This is unscientific right from the get-go. ====

Then you should disapprove of evolution as well. But you don't, so you've got cards you're not showing.

But proponents of the theory of evolution are? I would say ID proponents are.

Can you really deny that ID is at least used as an argument for the existence of a God? Though it is outwardly coy about identifying the 'designer', ID is often used to demonstrate 'evidence' that there is one - a supernatural being capable of transcending natural law and shaping the whole of creation. How short a step it is from there to God. Is it not obvious to anyone who listens that ID is a scientific-SOUNDING ideology for finding the fingerprints of a cosmic creator in nature?

Do you deny that you yourself believe in a God of some sort?

ID is not a scientific theory. It has no mechanisms. It merely points to whatever is found and cries 'miracle' if a natural explanatiuon is not immediately obvious.

The theory of evolution, by contrast, is entirely neutral on the topic of Gods, spirits or the supernatural - except to say that such beings cannot be INCORPORATED into it. This no more dismisses a deity than the theory of gravity, or germ theory.

But please don't just take my word for it - as I'm sure you're aware the U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed ID pseudo-science, and at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the judge officially ruled ID was not science.

Is everyone just out to get ID? Is everyone else - including the overwhelming majority of the scientific elite, who have dedicated their lives to science - brainwashed just wrong, and the handful of ID proponents are able to see what no-one else can?

Surely you can recognise this as cult thinking? You and your like-minded few are right and everyone else is wrong. All clocks in town are wrong apart from yours.

At yet, it is evolution which is built on religious belief?

"Then you should disapprove of evolution as well."

I do not. But I do disapprove of ID for the same reasons.

It is ID which obfuscates its religious motivations and desperately tries to cloak itself in sceintific respectability.

Why do I say this? Well, it does not behave as any scientific theory should - it makes no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, and is based on no evidence. It is comprised of nothing more than attacking evolution to seem plausible by default.

More than that, it tries to smuggle the supernatural into the scientific method. The supernatural has no place in science. It cannot. The supernatural does not belong there. It simply cannot allow deities and miracles and supernatural intelligent designers. This is not science.

Science is trying to make sense of how the universe works via natural laws and processes only.

Most Americans don't even have a passport! The odds against this unparsimonious origin theory are now millions to one.

Another falsified prediction of the dogmatic "Obama is President" thought police!

Religion drives the "Obama is President" theory, and it matters.

Don't pay any attention to the vast number of successful predictions of the atheist "Obama is President" theory, like that birth announcement printed in Honolulu newspapers in 1959, or the photos of him with his white grandma.

Luckily, Mr. Hunter has a more parsimonious theory about the origin of our president, right? A more parsimonious theory that makes testable predictions that are both more specific and different from the accepted theory...You do, right, Mr. Hunter?